Definition of allele: "any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation." (emphasis mine) https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
If DNA testing relied on alleles that mutated only once every several hundred generations, they would be useless in estimating whether you are related to your first cousin or grandfather, because with recombination rates that slow, you would match pretty much everybody. DNA tests can tell the difference between a sibling and a cousin (with some margin of error--it's all probabilities); this is possible only because they look for changes that occurred within a few generations.
For ethnicity reports, essentially these tests simply report that you have results that are statistically similar to those with a known ethnicity.
Mutations are precisely what the DNA tests look for. In fact, the specific locations that are read and reported by the DNA tests are ones that are known to mutate "slowly" (typically, once every few generations). Each location has a known mutation rate (with a random factor, of course), and this rate plays into the weight it is given when comparing two test results.
The comparing of two test results is highly accurate, with an error rate of only a few hundred locations (SNPs) per million. Thus determining whether two kits belong to people who are closely related is very accurate, because this requires long stretches of the DNA to match. Distant relatives (beyond 5th cousin or so) are harder to determine, because statistically, there is a higher chance of "false matches" for very short segments.
Determining ethnicity is similar to comparing kits of distantly related people. If the test says you are "Western European" that means that your DNA is similar to that of people who are known to be Western European. But there is a high margin for error, which is why these tests sometimes incorrectly identify ethnicity.
Correct. What the ethnicity predictions really say is that "you are statistically genetically similar to people who are known to be from region X or Y." They cannot tell where your ancestors actually came from.
The raw results are not in question. The story itself says that the raw data was nearly identical, as one would expect. It is only the extrapolation of that data to infer ethic lineage that didn't line up so well.
Note that the story stated that the two sets of raw data were "nearly identical." It wasn't the data that was the issue, but rather, the calculation of the ethnic background FROM that data.
The story was discussing the labs' reporting of ethnic heritage, not matching two DNA samples against each other to find out if they are the same person's DNA.
The story itself noted that the RAW DATA was nearly identical, as one would expect with identical twins. It was only the calculation of ethnic background that is (somewhat) in doubt.
No, it doesn't. It only emphasizes the need for education.
The ethnicity results of the various labs are not empirical science, it's statistical analysis. In a sample size of 700,000+ results, you're going to see some variation.
Measuring DNA results is always an exercise in statistical analysis. Mitosis does not produce exact copies. Every cell division has changes from its "parent" cell. When labs test your DNA, they rely on a large sample size, and calculate averages. Your results at a specific location might be 65% AA and 35% TT. They are going to show a result of AA in this case.
DNA results ARE meaningful, but it is necessary to understand what the results, and the algorithms, actually mean before making conclusions from them.
I've been tested by 3 labs; several hundred (of 700,000+) of my results differed between the three labs. When this happens, we geneticists throw out the mismatches as errors. I've never seen this change any results in a meaningful way.
OK so the shoddy maintenance I get is a problem. But leasing space in a building you own, to a company you control...what's wrong with that exactly, unless the rates are not market rates?
This is a technique used by many businesses to limit their losses should they suffer hard times. If a company owns its own building, and the company goes broke, they lose the building too. But if the building is owned by a separately-held LLC, and the company goes broke, the lenders can't take the building away. Most accountants worth their salt highly recommend this practice. My last two employers both used this as a way to shield themselves from catastrophic losses should things go bad.
I just canceled my account. The price increase is what triggered the thought to take the action. But price wasn't my major motivation. Rather, Netflix keeps dumping good content. The last several times I went to search for a specific movie or show, it wasn't there. Law and Order, NCIS LA, Murdoch Mysteries, Downton Abbey, to name a few.
As for Netflix Originals, the only one that really got our attention was The Crown, but do we want to keep paying all year just for that March release? We've been watching Netflix less and less. Finally, we couldn't justify the cost and said good-bye.
If you use GMail, the search is so good you can find anything from 10 years ago in a couple of seconds.
Even Outlook's search is good enough to find most emails quickly (though not nearly as good as GMail).
I just have two kinds of email: Those that are in my inbox still need some attention. Those that don't, I archive. That's it. It's worked for years, never regretted losing all that time trying to file emails in folders that would mystify me later.
When Coca Cola introduced, then withdrew, "New Coke," many suspected that the resulting success of Coke Classic was the original goal, and the "New Coke" was just a ruse. But Coca Cola executives were quoted as saying, "We're not that stupid, and we're not that smart." In other words, it just worked out for them, they didn't see it coming.
Netflix started with a simple business model, shipping DVDs in those little red envelopes. Remember those? It worked wildly beyond their expectations. Now that they are king of the hill, they are starting to throw their pricing muscle around.
No, I don't think there was some grand, sinister plan from the beginning. They just stumbled their way to this point.
Most paper in the US is made from trees grown on tree farms. Yes, trees are a crop, planted and raised by farmers, like any other crop. They just have a longer harvest cycle than seasonal crops.
What constitutes "touching," exactly? A backpacker walking across the land? An airplane flying over it? Smoke from a campfire wafting over it? Climate change?
By defining what "touching" means, you can pick a number from 0% to 50% untouched, just change the parameters.
No one is suggesting that the bots can't say what their authors want them to say. The law just requires them to disclose that they are bots.
In the megaphone analogy, everybody knows it's a megaphone, so there is nothing gained by disclosure.
A better analogy is campaign commercials, which must disclose who paid for the commercial. The commercial can then "say" whatever the authors want them to say.
What has taken you so long? Only NOW costs have reached the critical point? Give me a break! Cable costs reached that point a decade ago, but most people just kept paying anyway. Don't wait for the rate hike! There's plenty of good programming on RoKu or Amazon or Apple TV, for a lot less money.
Slashdot Mirror
Definition of allele: "any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation." (emphasis mine) https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
If DNA testing relied on alleles that mutated only once every several hundred generations, they would be useless in estimating whether you are related to your first cousin or grandfather, because with recombination rates that slow, you would match pretty much everybody. DNA tests can tell the difference between a sibling and a cousin (with some margin of error--it's all probabilities); this is possible only because they look for changes that occurred within a few generations.
For ethnicity reports, essentially these tests simply report that you have results that are statistically similar to those with a known ethnicity.
Mutations are precisely what the DNA tests look for. In fact, the specific locations that are read and reported by the DNA tests are ones that are known to mutate "slowly" (typically, once every few generations). Each location has a known mutation rate (with a random factor, of course), and this rate plays into the weight it is given when comparing two test results.
The comparing of two test results is highly accurate, with an error rate of only a few hundred locations (SNPs) per million. Thus determining whether two kits belong to people who are closely related is very accurate, because this requires long stretches of the DNA to match. Distant relatives (beyond 5th cousin or so) are harder to determine, because statistically, there is a higher chance of "false matches" for very short segments.
Determining ethnicity is similar to comparing kits of distantly related people. If the test says you are "Western European" that means that your DNA is similar to that of people who are known to be Western European. But there is a high margin for error, which is why these tests sometimes incorrectly identify ethnicity.
Have you seen medicines advertised recently? Do you suppose they make claims that go beyond what the science says?
Yeah, the DNA labs are no different. They have a product to sell, they are going to make it seem better than it is.
This over-advertising does not make the science behind medicine--or DNA--invalid.
Correct. What the ethnicity predictions really say is that "you are statistically genetically similar to people who are known to be from region X or Y." They cannot tell where your ancestors actually came from.
The raw results are not in question. The story itself says that the raw data was nearly identical, as one would expect. It is only the extrapolation of that data to infer ethic lineage that didn't line up so well.
The story doesn't imply this at all.
Note that the story stated that the two sets of raw data were "nearly identical." It wasn't the data that was the issue, but rather, the calculation of the ethnic background FROM that data.
These are not the same things.
The story was discussing the labs' reporting of ethnic heritage, not matching two DNA samples against each other to find out if they are the same person's DNA.
The story itself noted that the RAW DATA was nearly identical, as one would expect with identical twins. It was only the calculation of ethnic background that is (somewhat) in doubt.
No, it doesn't. It only emphasizes the need for education.
The ethnicity results of the various labs are not empirical science, it's statistical analysis. In a sample size of 700,000+ results, you're going to see some variation.
If they are making stuff up, how would they "detect" twins, exactly? You have no idea what you are talking about.
Measuring DNA results is always an exercise in statistical analysis. Mitosis does not produce exact copies. Every cell division has changes from its "parent" cell. When labs test your DNA, they rely on a large sample size, and calculate averages. Your results at a specific location might be 65% AA and 35% TT. They are going to show a result of AA in this case.
DNA results ARE meaningful, but it is necessary to understand what the results, and the algorithms, actually mean before making conclusions from them.
I've been tested by 3 labs; several hundred (of 700,000+) of my results differed between the three labs. When this happens, we geneticists throw out the mismatches as errors. I've never seen this change any results in a meaningful way.
OK so the shoddy maintenance I get is a problem. But leasing space in a building you own, to a company you control...what's wrong with that exactly, unless the rates are not market rates?
This is a technique used by many businesses to limit their losses should they suffer hard times. If a company owns its own building, and the company goes broke, they lose the building too. But if the building is owned by a separately-held LLC, and the company goes broke, the lenders can't take the building away. Most accountants worth their salt highly recommend this practice. My last two employers both used this as a way to shield themselves from catastrophic losses should things go bad.
Why shouldn't they?
I just canceled my account. The price increase is what triggered the thought to take the action. But price wasn't my major motivation. Rather, Netflix keeps dumping good content. The last several times I went to search for a specific movie or show, it wasn't there. Law and Order, NCIS LA, Murdoch Mysteries, Downton Abbey, to name a few.
As for Netflix Originals, the only one that really got our attention was The Crown, but do we want to keep paying all year just for that March release? We've been watching Netflix less and less. Finally, we couldn't justify the cost and said good-bye.
If you use GMail, the search is so good you can find anything from 10 years ago in a couple of seconds.
Even Outlook's search is good enough to find most emails quickly (though not nearly as good as GMail).
I just have two kinds of email: Those that are in my inbox still need some attention. Those that don't, I archive. That's it. It's worked for years, never regretted losing all that time trying to file emails in folders that would mystify me later.
All my cancer cells turned into fat!
You give Reed Hastings way too much credit.
When Coca Cola introduced, then withdrew, "New Coke," many suspected that the resulting success of Coke Classic was the original goal, and the "New Coke" was just a ruse. But Coca Cola executives were quoted as saying, "We're not that stupid, and we're not that smart." In other words, it just worked out for them, they didn't see it coming.
Netflix started with a simple business model, shipping DVDs in those little red envelopes. Remember those? It worked wildly beyond their expectations. Now that they are king of the hill, they are starting to throw their pricing muscle around.
No, I don't think there was some grand, sinister plan from the beginning. They just stumbled their way to this point.
Both the article and the summary agree, the plant is still a small shoot, so no giant leaves for mankind. Sorry, just a few very small ones!
Most paper in the US is made from trees grown on tree farms. Yes, trees are a crop, planted and raised by farmers, like any other crop. They just have a longer harvest cycle than seasonal crops.
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09...
Why do we want to put tree farmers out of business?
What constitutes "touching," exactly? A backpacker walking across the land? An airplane flying over it? Smoke from a campfire wafting over it? Climate change?
By defining what "touching" means, you can pick a number from 0% to 50% untouched, just change the parameters.
The law doesn't limit what the bots can SAY...it only requires that it be obvious that they are bots.
No one is suggesting that the bots can't say what their authors want them to say. The law just requires them to disclose that they are bots.
In the megaphone analogy, everybody knows it's a megaphone, so there is nothing gained by disclosure.
A better analogy is campaign commercials, which must disclose who paid for the commercial. The commercial can then "say" whatever the authors want them to say.
We already have ad blockers that block ALL ads
We do? I use AdBlockPlus, and I still see a whole lot of ads! Sites are more and more learning how to get around the ad blockers.
Oh they are. Comcast recently raised my cable modem rates by $5 a month.
What has taken you so long? Only NOW costs have reached the critical point? Give me a break! Cable costs reached that point a decade ago, but most people just kept paying anyway. Don't wait for the rate hike! There's plenty of good programming on RoKu or Amazon or Apple TV, for a lot less money.
People might start to figure out that life can go on without those government dollars. Politicians definitely won't allow us to get to that point!
And NOW where is VHS? It's in the attic with the cassette and 8-track tapes.